GOP: Failed State?

[Ivytalk]

Cruz wouldn't know the Constitution if it were sitting on his face...

That may be the stupidest comment you've ever made on this board. You don't like him: I get that. But I just broke my cardinal rule:

[DSUrocks07]

Ah yes. The "I believe more in the Constitution than you do" argument.

If that was the case, the Ron Paul should be the bellwether for that movement. And his son Rand would have gotten more traction this election cycle. Cruz believes only in the Constitution when its convienent and politically expedient for him. He's a wolf in sheeps clothing and the radical right is eating that **** up. If you want to be suckered into his delusions, by all means. I won't be. But what do I know, I'm a "Markell Democrat" all of a sudden, whatever the **** that means.

Give me three facts that support your contention that Cruz isn't a true Constitutional conservative. I think Cruz is an odd duck, and his "Sam I am" filibuster was a joke, but your man Trump has no claim to the Constitutional mantle. For a thinking person, if you're down to these two imperfect candidates, you have only one choice.

1) He supports a federal nationwide ban on abortions. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. Whatever happened to "state's rights"?

2) He constantly double speaks when it comes to fourth Amendment protections of citizens in this country.

3) Separation of church and state? Guess that doesn't mean much anymore for "strict Constitutional conservatives"

[Chizzang]

Cruz wouldn't know the Constitution if it were sitting on his face...

That may be the stupidest comment you've ever made on this board. You don't like him: I get that. But I just broke my cardinal rule:

Oh I know all you lawyers stick together...
But I recall you commenting that Scalia was a constitutional expert
and damn near everything I read about him and his rulings states just about the opposite



Unless it was Joe who claimed Scalia was... It might have been Joe (never mind)

[GannonFan]

That may be the stupidest comment you've ever made on this board. You don't like him: I get that. But I just broke my cardinal rule:

Oh I know all you lawyers stick together...
But I recall you commenting that Scalia was a constitutional expert
and damn near everything I read about him and his rulings states just about the opposite



Unless it was Joe who claimed Scalia was... It might have been Joe (never mind)

examples???

[GannonFan]

Give me three facts that support your contention that Cruz isn't a true Constitutional conservative. I think Cruz is an odd duck, and his "Sam I am" filibuster was a joke, but your man Trump has no claim to the Constitutional mantle. For a thinking person, if you're down to these two imperfect candidates, you have only one choice.

3) Separation of church and state? Guess that doesn't mean much anymore for "strict Constitutional conservatives"

I'm sure a strict Constitutional conservative will say that the words "separation of church and state" are nowhere in the Constitution or the amendments. Strictly speaking of course.

[SDHornet]

Give me three facts that support your contention that Cruz isn't a true Constitutional conservative. I think Cruz is an odd duck, and his "Sam I am" filibuster was a joke, but your man Trump has no claim to the Constitutional mantle. For a thinking person, if you're down to these two imperfect candidates, you have only one choice.

1) He supports a federal nationwide ban on abortions. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. Whatever happened to "state's rights"?

2) He constantly double speaks when it comes to fourth Amendment protections of citizens in this country.

3) Separation of church and state? Guess that doesn't mean much anymore for "strict Constitutional conservatives"

And DSU crushes the Cruz argument.

I love the irony in constitutionalist conks depending on a Canadian to be their last hope in this election.

[Ivytalk]

Give me three facts that support your contention that Cruz isn't a true Constitutional conservative. I think Cruz is an odd duck, and his "Sam I am" filibuster was a joke, but your man Trump has no claim to the Constitutional mantle. For a thinking person, if you're down to these two imperfect candidates, you have only one choice.

1) He supports a federal nationwide ban on abortions. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. Whatever happened to "state's rights"?

2) He constantly double speaks when it comes to fourth Amendment protections of citizens in this country.

3) Separation of church and state? Guess that doesn't mean much anymore for "strict Constitutional conservatives"

Good job of oppo research, although you cherry-pick your sources (and topics) and visit the sins of the father upon the son. As to the first issue, Roe is not well grounded in the Constitution, suffering from the "umbras and penumbras" claptrap that has characterized "privacy" cases for two generations. On the second issue, having been educated by Professor Klam and done some more reading, I'm coming around to the Paul view, but the question of who actually owns the phone records (and the consequent standing of the public to raise Fourth Amendment objections) is still a sticky wicket. The third issue is a red herring, plain and simple. But Trump is still the scarier of the two, because he's probably never even read the Constitution.

[DSUrocks07]

3) Separation of church and state? Guess that doesn't mean much anymore for "strict Constitutional conservatives"

I'm sure a strict Constitutional conservative will say that the words "separation of church and state" are nowhere in the Constitution or the amendments. Strictly speaking of course.

It doesn't, but it does say
that anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution as powers given to the federal government are left to the states

[GannonFan]

I'm sure a strict Constitutional conservative will say that the words "separation of church and state" are nowhere in the Constitution or the amendments. Strictly speaking of course.

It doesn't, but it does say
that anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution as powers given to the federal government are left to the states

Where does it say "explicitly stated" in the Constitution or in the 10th amendment?

[Ivytalk]

3) Separation of church and state? Guess that doesn't mean much anymore for "strict Constitutional conservatives"

I'm sure a strict Constitutional conservative will say that the words "separation of church and state" are nowhere in the Constitution or the amendments. Strictly speaking of course.

You derive it from the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

And Chico Marx's Insanity Clause.

[DSUrocks07]

Last I checked. The Bill of Rights was a part of the original document. I mean that's what we always hear everyone bloviating about. "OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!"

[GannonFan]

Last I checked. The Bill of Rights was a part of the original document. I mean that's what we always hear everyone bloviating about. "OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!"

Huh? What history classes have you taken? The Bill of Rights was not part of the original document, hence why they are called "amendments". Seeing how they were written in 1789 and finally approved in 1791, and the Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified the following year, it's hard to classify them as "part of the original document". I'd advise checking again.

[BDKJMU]

Last I checked. The Bill of Rights was a part of the original document. I mean that's what we always hear everyone bloviating about. "OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!"

Say what..

[DSUrocks07]

:sigh:

Never mind guys, I'm leaving this thread. I'm getting overly worked up about this for some odd reason. Stress I suppose. :shrug: